About cheo25

Recent Profile Visitors

They look great without the black accents. And while the Lions fan above doesn't want the blue pants, I can't wait to see to see them with white jerseys. I'm not a fan of gray/silver pants with a white jersey, especially when your helmet is silver.
But I respect his opinion more because he is a Lions fan, and it's his team. He has emotion invested in the team, and I don't. To me, I just see it as another team's uniform.

It's better than just blue and white. As much as I'd like to see the Padres back in brown, I could live with the Padres in navy and yellow. Or royal blue and yellow. Or powder blue and yellow. Or brown and yellow, orange or white.
Just anything other than navy and white. Navy and white feels like they've just given up.

Give me color for the road team, white for the home team. And give me different colored alts if a team has more than one and more than one player on the squad. Loved when the A's and mid-'70s Indians did that back in the day.

Great post. But I don't think the Astrodome got team logos on the outfield walls until 1977. I know they had them that year because I've seen This Week in Baseball episodes from that year with logos on the wall.
This attached photo is from 1976, I think. And I think that's the year because if you look really hard, you can see the Astros don't have the circle and number on the back of the jersey like they did in 1975. Note there are no outfield logos.
I believe this is the box score from the game pictured. If you look hard at the scoreboard, you can see the Astros got 1 in the first and second, and that No. 47, who was Joaquin Andujar, is the Astros' pitcher in this game.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/HOU/HOU197606061.shtml

Cardinals haven't done that since they moved into their retractable-roof dome (which will more than likely be closed for an early-season game) in 2006. To my knowledge, the only time the Cardinals wore white at home was a game against the Texans in 2009.

Depends on your frame of reference. You can make the argument for it being a better look on an aesthetic basis and even for the Astros themselves, considering the Astros wore those uniform styles longer than any other style. In the previous 38 seasons, they either switched nicknames, reversed colors for primary and secondary (1971 switch to orange), switched to rainbow guts, and then later to rainbow sleeves before swapping orange for gold for six seasons.
In a vaccum, I think it's the pinstripes and red-trimmed road uniforms above look good. I loved the cap when it first came out. I have the same opinion about the mid-to-late 1990s navy and gold uniforms. My problem with the red and black (and navy and gold) is that I grew up in the '70s/80s so my frame of reference for the Astros is shooting star/rainbows with navy and orange colors. To me, the Astros' identity is navy and orange. The red and black looks good, but it's not the Astros to me.
Others can disagree, especially if they were kids when the Astros switched to this. To argue to a college kid that the Astros should be in navy and orange because that's their identity is a problem because the college kid may have only known the Astros in red and black (or navy and gold).
That's why when a team makes a mistake with its identity, it needs to correct that mistake ASAP before a certain section of fans only come to know that team in those uniforms. The Padres are an even better example of this. I think they should be brown and yellow (or at least brown) because I associate that with the Padres identity as a kid growing up. But they haven't worn brown on a full-time basis since 1990.

I'm a grumpy old man. So I hate special event uniforms for aesthetic and, more importantly, for financial reasons, especially when you're profiting off tragedy (Memorial Day, cancer, etc.). I refuse to believe MLB isn't making money off this, regardless of whatever semantic spin they want to attach to it.
I love fidget spinners. My daughter got one, and it's pretty cool.

I agree. Bugs me the Astros don't have an orange-billed helmet nor do they have a orange helmet with a blue bill for the Sunday home games. Also bugged me they never had a red batting helmet to go with the red caps in the old crappy red-and-black days. The batting helmet is supposed to be an extension of the cap. Make 'em match or have only one cap.

Agreed. Not everyone needs to wear 42. If I went to the game and am staring at the players in the field and none of them have names on the backs of the jerseys and all are wearing 42, then how the hell am I supposed to know which player is playing in the field (especially on the visiting teams)? Not only is everyone wearing 42 an act of overkill, it's an impractical mess.
Just like the "special cause" uniforms. Started on one day with blue (and later pink for Mother's Day) wristbands. Then it went to bats, then it extended to caps and jerseys, now it's on caps and jerseys. And it's not just one day now, it's gonna be for the entire weekend. And that doesn't include all of the holidays, and then all of the BS camo being worn for random reasons.
Leave the damn uniforms alone. Pick a color scheme, get your home and road uniforms and one alternate jersey in your color scheme and stick to it. Don't give me the BS of hiding behind charity. If the cause is important (and most of the causes are important), then you don't need an incentive or extra reason to donate. People know about diseases and veterans, etc. You don't have to wear pink, blue, stars and stripes, camo, etc., to make people aware. Make your donation, honor some folks during the game. Hold a moment of silence for Jackie Robinson, Roberto Clemente, Lou Gehrig, anyone else, and have tributes between innings. But leave the freakin' uniforms alone.

I respectfully disagree on the Astros, who actually upgraded when they went back to navy and orange. They should have never gone to black and red. They did it because those were hot colors around the turn of the century, their former huckster of an owner never passed up a chance to make a buck and he seized on the chance to gloss himself by adopting the colors of his trucking company. The navy-and-gold era wasn't as bad, and it was tolerable because navy was still around and I liked the return of "Houston" to the road jerseys.
But the navy and orange are the Astros' rightful colors. If you want to argue their home jerseys are dull as dishwater and their primary logo is equally boring, I'll agree with you on that. I would have preferred a return to the original shooting star jerseys they wore when they became the Astros in 1965 (and I would have been OK with that as the primary logo. It would have had a wordmark and a semblance of a logo with the shooting star.).
I like the current Houston road jerseys because it's pretty close to the first "Houston" wordmark the Astros wore from 1962 through 1970. I don't have a suggestion for a better Astros logo outside of the shooting star, but the roundel is a snoozer.

Any teams I truly hate is based on the team, not the uniforms. But there are some teams I don't like and it's based on uniforms in large part for some of them (especially those teams with some form of teal in their color scheme). Basically, any franchises that were born in the '90s or rebranded (Titans, Ravens) are on my crap list because of awful uniforms and/or identities.